If it is true that definitional problems are always present in International Relations Theory, the English School is an evident example. Its boundaries are contested, its core arguments defined as heterogeneous by its proponents and inconsistent by its critics. Yet, the English School has its own identity. This is often reflected in the organisation and conceptualization of many IR textbooks that devote specific chapters to the School.1 In spite of being considered a defeated approach by the IR mainstream, the English School still plays an important role in IR Theory, precisely because of its eclectic and multi-faceted contribution to the discipline.
Who still cares about the English School, and why?
Gardini, Gian Luca
2010-01-01
Abstract
If it is true that definitional problems are always present in International Relations Theory, the English School is an evident example. Its boundaries are contested, its core arguments defined as heterogeneous by its proponents and inconsistent by its critics. Yet, the English School has its own identity. This is often reflected in the organisation and conceptualization of many IR textbooks that devote specific chapters to the School.1 In spite of being considered a defeated approach by the IR mainstream, the English School still plays an important role in IR Theory, precisely because of its eclectic and multi-faceted contribution to the discipline.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
